Hawaii Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)

Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Hawaii, but recording with them involves a hybrid legal framework that is more nuanced than a flat one-party consent rule. Under HRS 803-42(b)(3)(A), a participant in a conversation may record it without the other party's consent. A separate layer, HRS 711-1111, adds an all-party consent requirement for recording inside a private place, making Hawaii one of the more complex states for smart glasses users.

Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Hawaii?

Yes. Hawaii has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is sold freely throughout the state and its possession raises no legal issue under Hawaii or federal law.

The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. Whether a particular recording is lawful depends on the content captured, the location, and whether you are a participant in any conversation being recorded.

Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces

Public spaces

Recording video in a public space (a street, sidewalk, park, retail store, beach, or other location generally accessible to the public) is lawful in Hawaii under both state and federal law. When a person is in public, they have a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed.

The federal Wiretap Act's definition of an "oral communication" under 18 U.S.C. 2510(2) is limited to communications uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Silent video in public does not trigger the federal wiretap statute. Hawaii law is consistent with this framework: the consent rules in HRS 803-42 govern audio interception, not video capture alone.

Smart glasses worn on a Honolulu sidewalk, at Waikiki Beach, at a public park, or in a publicly accessible building generally do not create legal exposure from video capture alone.

Semi-public and private spaces

The analysis shifts materially in semi-public or private settings. A private home, a hotel room, a medical office, a closed office, or a restaurant booth during a quiet conversation can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of spoken words. Under Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the constitutional test requires both a subjective expectation of privacy and one that society recognizes as objectively reasonable.

Hawaii courts apply this framework when evaluating whether a conversation is "private" within the meaning of HRS 803-42 and whether a location is a "private place" within the meaning of HRS 711-1111.

Recording inside private places

HRS 711-1111(1)(d) makes it a misdemeanor to install or use a device for recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in a private place without consent of the persons entitled to privacy in that place. The statute also covers using a device placed outside a private place to intercept sounds originating inside that would not ordinarily be audible from outside.

This rule operates independently of the wiretap consent framework. Even if one-party consent is satisfied under HRS 803-42 (meaning you are a participant in the conversation), you may still be guilty of a misdemeanor if you use a recording device in a private place without consent of those entitled to privacy there. The Hawaii Supreme Court confirmed this principle in State v. Lo, 66 Haw. 653, 675 P.2d 754 (1983), holding that HRS 803-42 does not permit recording in a private place without the consent of those entitled to privacy in that space.

A misdemeanor in Hawaii carries up to one year imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,000 under HRS 706-663 and HRS 706-640.

Recording Audio and Hawaii's One-Party Consent Rule

The statute: HRS 803-42(b)(3)(A)

Hawaii's Wiretap Act, HRS 803-42, governs the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications. Subsection (b)(3)(A) provides the one-party consent rule:

It is not unlawful for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when that person is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.

This is the federal baseline codified in state law. If you are actively participating in a conversation, speaking with the other person while they speak with you, you may record that conversation under HRS 803-42 without notifying or obtaining consent from the other parties.

The canonical precedent: State v. Okubo

The Hawaii Supreme Court applied HRS 803-42(b)(3) in State v. Okubo, 67 Haw. 197, 682 P.2d 79 (1984), and held that a recording made by a participant to a conversation does not violate the Hawaii Wiretap Act because one party, the recorder, consented. Okubo is the canonical Hawaii authority confirming the one-party consent rule and establishing that a participant's recording does not violate Article I, Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution under ordinary circumstances.

What the one-party rule covers, and does not cover

The one-party consent rule under HRS 803-42 covers the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications by a participant. It does not authorize:

• Recording a private conversation between two other people when you are not a participant in that conversation.
• Installing or using a recording device in a private place without consent of those entitled to privacy there (that triggers HRS 711-1111 regardless of the wiretap rule).
• Recording for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act; the statute expressly forecloses that use.

Under State v. Lee, 67 Haw. 307, 686 P.2d 816 (1984), wearing a body-mounted recording device by a consenting party does not constitute an "installation" for purposes of HRS 803-42's color-of-law restriction on installation in a private place. The case clarifies that a participant wearing a recording device (analogous to smart glasses capturing a conversation the wearer is part of) remains a lawful one-party recording.

Practical application for smart glasses

For a smart glasses wearer in Hawaii:

Recording a conversation you are having with another person, whether at a coffee shop, in an office, or during a business meeting, is lawful under HRS 803-42(b)(3)(A) as long as you are a genuine participant. You do not need to disclose the recording.

Recording a private conversation between other people that you are not part of is not covered by the one-party rule. If you hold the glasses to capture a conversation happening nearby without being a participant, HRS 803-42's consent framework requires all-party consent.

Recording any conversation inside a private place while using the glasses as a device to capture sounds in that place additionally implicates HRS 711-1111, regardless of whether you are a participant.

For more detail on Hawaii's hybrid consent framework, see the Hawaii Recording Laws page.

Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Unlawful Surveillance

Regardless of consent rules, Hawaii law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct.

Violation of Privacy in the Second Degree: HRS 711-1111

HRS 711-1111 covers a range of privacy offenses that are misdemeanors, including:

• Installing or using a device for recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in a private place without consent of those entitled to privacy there.
• Installing or using a device outside a private place to intercept sounds originating inside that would not ordinarily be audible from outside.
• Covert recording of intimate areas underneath clothing in public (upskirt-style recording).
• Trespassing for the purpose of eavesdropping or surveillance in a private place.

A misdemeanor conviction carries up to one year imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,000.

Violation of Privacy in the First Degree: HRS 711-1110.9

HRS 711-1110.9 is a Class C felony, carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000 under HRS 706-660 and HRS 706-640, and covers three categories of conduct:

First, intentionally or knowingly installing or using a device in a private place without consent to observe, record, amplify, or broadcast another person in a stage of undress or sexual activity in that place.

Second, knowingly disclosing or threatening to disclose an image or video of another identifiable person in the nude or engaging in sexual conduct without the depicted person's consent, with intent to substantially harm the depicted person or as an act of revenge or retribution. This is Hawaii's nonconsensual intimate-image (NCII) statute, added by Act 116, Session Laws 2014, and strengthened by Act 114, Session Laws 2018.

Third, intentionally creating or disclosing a synthetic composite image or video that uses the recognizable physical characteristics of a known person depicted nude or engaging in sexual conduct, with intent to substantially harm that person. This deepfake provision was added by Act 59, Session Laws 2021, and it remains in force independent of any election-related deepfake legislation.

The covert appearance of smart glasses, which look exactly like ordinary eyewear to bystanders, does not create any exception to these prohibitions. The hidden nature of the recording can aggravate the offense in practice.

The locations where these statutes apply most clearly include restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, hotel rooms, private residences, medical examination rooms, and fitting rooms.

Federal law adds a parallel floor: 18 U.S.C. 1801, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, separately prohibits recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent.

The rule is absolute: no consent from any third party, and no location, can legalize recording someone's intimate areas in a space where they reasonably expect privacy from visual observation.

Recording Law Enforcement in Hawaii

Hawaii provides unusually strong legal protection for people who record police officers and other law enforcement personnel.

Statutory right: HRS 711-1111(1)(d)

Since 2016, HRS 711-1111(1)(d) contains an explicit statutory carve-out: it is not a violation of privacy to make a video or audio recording or take a photograph of a law enforcement officer while the officer is performing their duties in a public place, or under circumstances in which the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy, provided the person is not interfering with the officer's ability to maintain safety and control, secure crime scenes and accident sites, protect the integrity and confidentiality of investigations, and protect public safety and order.

This statutory right was added by Act 164, Session Laws 2016. It is a direct legislative response to concerns about police accountability and provides protection that operates independently of federal constitutional law.

First Amendment protection: Ninth Circuit

Hawaii also sits within the Ninth Circuit, where Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995) recognized a First Amendment right to film matters of public interest, including police officers performing their duties in public. Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018) extended and confirmed Fordyce, holding that the First Amendment protects photographing and recording law enforcement officers exercising their duties in public places and treating interference with that right as a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny.

Both decisions are binding in Hawaii's federal courts. The combination of the statutory right under HRS 711-1111(1)(d) and the federal First Amendment right under Fordyce and Askins makes Hawaii's record-the-police framework one of the most protective in the country.

For smart glasses wearers, this means recording a police encounter in public, whether a traffic stop, a street interaction, or a public demonstration, is lawful in Hawaii. You may not interfere with the officer's duties while recording.

Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy

Hawaii does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), or Washington's biometric identifier law (RCW Chapter 19.375).

Under Hawaii state law alone, using smart glasses with a facial recognition application to scan and identify persons in public does not trigger a standalone state biometric statute the way it would in Illinois (where BIPA imposes up to $5,000 per person in statutory damages for capturing face geometry without written consent) or Texas (where CUBI allows civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation for commercial capture without consent).

Hawaii residents and visitors are not without recourse, however. Federal law, common-law privacy torts, and Hawaii's own privacy framework still apply. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts 652B, intentionally intruding upon the solitude or seclusion of another person in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability regardless of whether any biometric statute applies. The act of covert recording itself can create that liability without requiring publication of the footage.

The biometric risk is most acute through third-party software integrations. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses provide a camera but do not natively run facial recognition. The legal exposure arises when a user pairs the glasses with a third-party facial recognition application to identify individuals. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a reverse facial-recognition search engine to identify strangers in real time and retrieve their home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes of capturing a face. That demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. Hawaii users who replicate this type of integration face civil tort liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts 652B, and potentially face liability under the biometric laws of states where identified persons reside, particularly under Illinois, Texas, or Washington law.

Penalties Summary

Offense	Statute	Classification	Maximum Penalty
Unlawful interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication	HRS 803-42(a)	Class C felony	5 years / $10,000 fine
Recording in a private place without consent (non-undress)	HRS 711-1111(1)(d)	Misdemeanor	1 year / $2,000 fine
Recording person in undress/sexual activity in private place	HRS 711-1110.9(1)(a)	Class C felony	5 years / $10,000 fine
Nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images (NCII)	HRS 711-1110.9(1)(b)	Class C felony	5 years / $10,000 fine
Deepfake intimate imagery using known person's likeness	HRS 711-1110.9(1)(c)	Class C felony	5 years / $10,000 fine
Federal Wiretap Act violation	18 U.S.C. 2511	Federal crime	5 years / $10,000 min civil

Beyond criminal penalties, HRS 803-48 provides a civil cause of action for persons whose wire, oral, or electronic communications are unlawfully intercepted. A plaintiff may recover the greater of actual damages plus violator profits, or statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, plus punitive damages where appropriate and reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs. This is a robust civil remedy that significantly exceeds the federal Wiretap Act's civil floor in practical terms when violations extend over multiple days.

Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Hawaii

Know the hybrid rule. Hawaii is one-party consent under HRS 803-42 for audio interception, but all-party consent for recording inside a private place under HRS 711-1111. Being a participant in a conversation does not automatically authorize recording if you are inside a private place without the consent of those entitled to privacy there. These two rules operate independently.

Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Hawaii law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearables, but deliberately obscuring the LED removes the only visible signal that recording is occurring, which directly strengthens evidence of covert recording intent if a dispute arises under HRS 711-1111.

Disclose before recording in private settings. Even when the one-party consent rule under HRS 803-42 technically permits a participant to record a conversation without disclosure, recording inside a private place (an office, a home, a hotel room) without consent of those entitled to privacy there creates misdemeanor exposure under HRS 711-1111. In private settings, disclosing the recording at the outset eliminates that additional legal layer entirely.

Never record in locker rooms or restrooms. The prohibition under HRS 711-1110.9 on recording a person in a state of undress in a private place is a Class C felony. Remove the glasses before entering any space where people have a clear expectation of privacy from visual observation. Hawaii's tourist infrastructure, including beach changing facilities, hotel pools, and resort locker rooms, makes this a practical concern for visitors.

Recording police: you are protected. Hawaii's statutory carve-out in HRS 711-1111(1)(d) and the Ninth Circuit's First Amendment holdings in Fordyce and Askins give Hawaii residents and visitors clear legal authority to record law enforcement in public. Do not interfere with the officer's duties, and let the LED remain visible.

Facial recognition adds risk. Hawaii has no biometric statute, but using smart glasses to identify strangers through facial recognition software exposes you to common-law tort liability and potentially to the laws of states where the identified person resides, especially Illinois, Texas, or Washington.

Driving caution. Hawaii's distracted-driving statutes focus on handheld electronic device use. No Hawaii statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display glasses while driving. Navigation use via smart glasses is likely analogous to a mounted GPS. Using smart glasses for live streaming, video calls, or social media interaction while driving raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic device distraction, and the legal status remains unsettled in Hawaii as elsewhere.

Sources